UESPWiki:Community Portal/Archive 7
|This is an archive of past UESPWiki:Community Portal discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.|
- 1 Archiving/Subpaging
- 2 German-language version
- 3 Blocking Policy
- 4 Protected Pages
- 5 Changes to Introductory Pages
- 6 Fanfiction and Fanart
- 7 Content Policy
- 8 UESP Server Status
- 9 Daggerfall Pages
- 10 A problem with logging in.
- 11 StrategyWiki
- 12 General resolving thingy
- 13 DrPhoton's misuse of his privileges
- 14 New Warning Messages
- 15 Morrowind ingredient lists
- 16 Hello Everyone
Moved from former Archiving Subpages topic. --Wrye 02:02, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
There are a couple subpages I'd like to suggest archiving. The main priorities here are a few pages that are resolved and/or mostly resolved, and that contain some of the recent drama that most of us agree we would like to put behind us so we can move on. In particular:
- UESPWiki:Community Portal/De-Adminship Request
- UESPWiki:Community Portal/Principles Controversy
- UESPWiki:Community Portal/Wikiscrolls Project
I'm proposing to create a page [[UESPWiki:Community Portal/Subpages]] where all of the community portal subpages can be listed; a link to that page would be added to the tables in the contents section. Those subpages that are archived would no longer be listed directly on the Community Portal page, but would still be accessible through the Community_Portal/Subpages page.
A couple of other candidates that could also be considered for archiving (just to reduce the size of the long tables at the top of the page) are:
- UESPWiki:Community Portal/Anonymous Editing
- UESPWiki:Community Portal/Copyright Issues
- UESPWiki:Community Portal/Morrowind Quest Pages
- UESPWiki:Community Portal/Patrollers
If at some point in the future there is an interest in resuming one of these discussions, it could easily be moved back to the community portal listing. But in the meantime, having a shorter, more manageable list on this page seems like it would best overall.
Are there any objections to this idea, or to any of the individual selections? Or if enough people state that they're OK with it, then I could go ahead and do it. --Nephele 15:24, 27 February 2007 (EST)
- Sounds good to me Jadrax 15:27, 27 February 2007 (EST)
- Rather than start yet another subpage, I've moved the subpage links to the top of the most recent archive subpage. (We should probably start adding to existing archive pages when practical, rather than start new archive subpages, else the length of the archive subpages list itself will become an annoyance.)
- As for the other subpages, I think that it is still too soon. I understand the desire to move on, but I think that it's important in terms of transparency for people who are non-admins for issues to not just suddenly disappear and be swept under the table. But balancing that against the desire for peace, I would suggest waiting a week and then moving Principles and De-Adminship to the archive page in the same way.
- As for the WikiScrolls link, I would prefer that it be left in in place (but add links to the related discussions to the subpage.) Again, the goal is transparency. Users should be able to find out easily about Wikiscrolls and the history behind its formation. The truth is that arguments happen, people get divorced, groups split. The reaons for why that happened should be left available so that new users can easily understand the reasons and make their own decicsions on what it all means.
- PS: We probably need a "This page has been archived" tempate. Maybe like so: Wikipedia Archive Template --Wrye 19:50, 27 February 2007 (EST)
Since time has passed and there's been no objection to my suggestion above, I've aggregated the dispute pages. Again, in the interest of transparency, I think that it's important that users be able to see that there was a dispute, and be able to easily find the discussions if they're interested. However, I understand the desire to put a painful episode behind us. So as compromise, I've moved the links to individual dispute pages to a single subpage, and linked to that page. Also, in the interest of transparency, I've retained the link to Wikiscrolls.
Also, I'm moved the discussion re archiving here since it's a "meta" discussion about what goes on the page. However, I don't have an objection to this chunk being archived to Archive 6 immediately, since this is just the final archiving note, and again archiving might help us put the dispute behind us. --Wrye 02:02, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
I've also added [[Template:Community Portal Archive]] to the top of all archives and archived subpages. Not real pretty (an icon like this would be nice) and text could be better , but it's better than nothing. And templates are easy to edit... --Wrye 02:37, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
I'd like to propose to set up a German-language version of this site. There are, as far as I could see, no good Oblivion and Morrowind sides in German and this is, in my opinion, the best side on the Elder Scrolls. So I'd like to translate articles on Oblivion in German for those whose English is not good enough to understand them. Please tell me what you think about it. Trillian 01:28, 27 January 2007 (CET)
- Personally, I'd have no problem with it. Still, there might be a problem with the copyright laws that would prevent it, and I'm not Dave either. --Ratwar 19:38, 26 January 2007 (EST)
- You'd need Daveh's permission to start a German wiki under the name UESP, and you would need to ensure that you license everything under the BY-SA license. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/) --Aristeo | Talk 19:48, 26 January 2007 (EST)
What does everyone think about creating a German-language section within UESP, instead of relying upon a separate site? For example, we could create a namespace dedicated to german articles on Oblivion, maybe named "OblivionDe". The German-language introduction page would then be at OblivionDe:Oblivion, and a page like Oblivion:Ingredients_German would be moved to OblivionDe:Ingredients (or translate the title, too, so perhaps OblivionDe:Zutaten). There wouldn't be any copyright issues if the content is still located at UESP. I think supporting German (or other language) content is completely consistent with UESP's goal of providing a comprehensive website describing the Elder Scrolls games... as long as there editors who are interested in doing some of the work translating pages. --Nephele 03:31, 27 January 2007 (EST)
- If there are people wanting to create the pages and update them I can't see any real reason not to let them tbh. Jadrax 06:58, 27 January 2007 (EST)
- Well, if Jadrax could round up some friends that are interested in developing a German-language wiki, then I don't see why not. --Aristeo | Talk 07:19, 27 January 2007 (EST)
What Nephele said was more what I had in mind. Sorry I did make myself clearer last night. The thing is that I know quite a few people whose English is good enough to find their way around on an English side but not to read longer or complicated articles. And this side is so great when it comes to giving detailed information about the game, especially the Gameplay Information and the In-Depth Guides. They help a lot more when you are new to one of the games then a walkthrough for a quest (at least it that way was for me). So I figured that translating the articles and putting them in here would help a lot of people. But only if it is ok with the editors here. But the point with asking Daveh is true and I will ask him. I just wanted to make sure that I won't offend other people here and that there are people who willing to help since, even though I am willing to do a lot, it might be a bit to much to do it alone. :-) Trillian 13:22, 27 January 2007 (CET)
- While I haven't given much thought to translations I'm perfectly fine with people translating site articles either on or off the site (I get requests from time to time). If we're going to do much translation on the site, however, I'd prefer a solution like how Wikipedia handles articles in multiple languages. I don't know much about at the moment but will look into it, and if others know more about it feel free to let me know. I'd rather use a good system from the start even it takes some effort rather than having issues further down the line. -- Daveh 12:38, 29 January 2007 (EST)
I've written up a new page to provide a proposed Blocking Policy. The intent is to provide some consistency about when and how accounts are blocked, and also to have some guidelines in place ahead of time in case any incidents arise related to blocked accounts. I'd welcome any feedback on the policy at its talk page. --Nephele 13:44, 10 February 2007 (EST)
A discussion has been started on the Administrator Noticeboard about the site's current policy on protecting pages. In particular, there has been discussion about whether editors feel that they need to be able to directly edit the Main Page, and whether that ability justifies increasing the risk of vandalism to the main page. Any editors who have opinions about these issues are welcome to contribute to the discussion on the Administrator Noticeboard. (All editors are always free to contribute to any discussions on that page; I just wanted to make sure that the community was aware of this particular discussion). --Nephele 21:29, 11 February 2007 (EST)
Changes to Introductory Pages
Looking back on some changes that I made yesterday to UESPWiki:Helping Out and UESPWiki:Getting Started (and earlier to UESPWiki:Policies and Guidelines) I realized that I introduced a shift in some policy, and wanted to point the changes out to the community and make sure that I didn't make any unacceptable changes. The issue is whether new editors should be encouraged to read all the policies and guidelines before getting started, or whether they should be encouraged to just start editing first and come back and learn about the policies and guidelines later.
A pre-existing statement on Helping Out described the policies and guidelines as:
- Important rules and guidelines that you should try to become familiar with before editing
That statement is still there (under See Also). But I added a paragraph to Getting Started that basically says start editing without worrying about making mistakes; learn the rules later. And I earlier changed the introduction to UESPWiki:Policies and Guidelines, in particular stating explicitly:
- New editors on the site are not required to read through all of these policies and guidelines; they are not a list of rules that must be understood before participating in the site.
My basic feeling is that the new editors who most need to read the rules (i.e., those who add first-person stories or even those who vandalize) are the ones who are least likely to ever even look at pages like "Helping Out", "Getting Started", and "Style Guide"; they'll never even see any warnings placed there. The editors who will read through these pages before starting to edit are those who are fundamentally concerned about doing things properly and basically aren't going to be breaking any rules. I think it's important to tell those editors not to worry and just dive in; I don't want anyone to be so intimidated by the rules that they never get involved.
This isn't really an earth-shattering change to the wiki :) But I think it does perhaps represent some of the basic assumptions that we make when interacting with new editors who make mistakes. Do we say "you should have already read all the rules" and assume that they are aware that they made a mistake? Or do we assume that they probably don't know the rules and instead say "you probably didn't know this, but this is how we generally do things around here".
Or maybe my recent spree of policy-writing has left me paranoid about the little things and I should just stop worrying about obscure details that nobody else will ever read ;) In any case, let me know if you have any thoughts. --Nephele 18:54, 16 February 2007 (EST)
Fanfiction and Fanart
Maybe it's just me, but I feel that the content on those sections is unencyclopedic and a bit...I don't know that it belongs here. There are two Oblivion fics and one Morrowind, so it's not a well-beloved section. I dunno, I almost want to see them deleted. Somercy 12:58, 21 February 2007 (EST)
- Another option that I just thought of is to move them to the User namespace, as subpages of the user who created them. And delete the links from Oblivion:Oblivion and Morrowind:Morrowind. It would remove them from the main article namespace (which is supposed to be encyclopedic) but is less controversial than a deletion. --Nephele 13:24, 21 February 2007 (EST)
- The site is not intended to be a 'pure encyclopedia' and I certainly welcome mind such content. It does, however, need to be clearly distinguished from the rest of the encyclopedic-type content. It doesn't really belong in any of the game namespaces even if closely related to a particular game. Offhand the only thing I can think of is to add it to a new FanFiction namespace. This is particularily relevant as someone recently e-mailed me some fan-fiction to put somewhere and I have to figure out where. -- Daveh 14:51, 21 February 2007 (EST)
- Perhaps instead of creating a whole namespace for four articles they could be put into "General", with an index article "General:Fanfiction" that lists them all?
- Somewhat off-topic, but while checking what currently lives in the "General" namespace, I also noticed that there's a "Review" namespace with nothing in it. Was there an intended purpose for that namespace? In part I'm wondering because this discussion also prompted me to make some suggestions at Nephele 15:10, 21 February 2007 (EST) about relocating some user reviews. Or should the "Review" namespace be recycled, since we're talking about a couple new namespaces ("Shadowkey", "Shivering")? --
- Well, I think this is really a small issue. As Somercy noted, the number of fanfics on the site is quite small. That being said, I think that a new section for both reviews, fanArt, and fanfics would allow us to differentiate that content from the rest of the site. All we'd need is a simple disclaimer at the top of the page saying something like this:
- This section contains information created by the fanbase, such as reviews, fanfictions, and fanart based upon the Elder Scrolls Series of games.
- Any comments?--Ratwar 17:44, 21 February 2007 (EST)
- If providing space for fanfic is part of the mandate for the site, (Which as it's DaveH's site and he says it is, I think we can take as written,) then clearly it should be in an area outside the CC Licence. I would suggest making a separate name space, full of pages that were locked to prevent editing. This is an additional admin burden though, as new pages created would have to be locked (Or deleted if they were not up to standard, and how you measure that is yet another issue.) Jadrax 23:21, 24 February 2007 (EST)
- I agree with Somercy -- Fanfics don't belong here. In addition to being out-of-place, there are several logistical problems:
- Potentially it can explode in size with little oversight. They're not data entries, but rather, original creative works. Which means that they won't be subject to the normal wiki process of review, winnowing and improvement. Wiki content works because it's open to continual review and upgrading. Without such review we can end up with total garbage on the site.
- So, if you don't want total garbage on the site, how do you select it? You need some review and voting policy -- sort of an art committee. Which would be a pain to setup, and would lead to inevitable arguments and fights, since when it comes to such work, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Vs. current fact based work which we have now, which is ultimately subject to testable fact -- a (relatively) clear, testable standard.
- The site is under CC license. Which means that if someone puts a fanfic on the site, then anyone else has the option to edit and change it around completely. Most authors won't like this. And again, there's no objective standard. Who's to say that my modification of the someone else's story (with more tender love scenes, or less tender love scenes, more fighting, or less bombastic writing) is better?
- There are plenty of sites which are dedicated to supporting fan fiction. Their design is better suited to it. For example, a very quick web search returns fanfiction.net: Oblivion.
- --Wrye 23:19, 21 February 2007 (EST)
- Overall, I agree that fanfiction doesn't seem to belong on a wiki. For now, though, I'm going to move them to the General namespace and add categories and bread crumb trails. This will at least avoid having readers confuse them for articles about the games. And it's also part of some reorganization that I'm doing with the general namespace that will hopefully make it a bit easier for readers to find content located there. Since I'm on a roll right now, I'm going to go ahead and do it... from the previous comments it doesn't seem like anyone objects to the idea. --Nephele 15:35, 2 March 2007 (EST)
- Is there any set way of submitting fanfics here? Or do you just create a page in the proper place? 22.214.171.124 10:50, 3 March 2007 (EST)
It has recently come to my attention that the official forums have updated their Adult/Mature Content rules. Now, on the surface, this does appear to interfere with our site, but according to the new rules:
Q: Can I link to the website for a mod with adult content, or to the mod itself, as long as that site doesn’t have any pictures? What if I include a disclaimer in my post?
A: In all of these cases the answer is no. It's not acceptable to simply include a disclaimer in your post, and even if that site doesn’t have pictures you still can’t link to it. We don’t like this sort of content as it creates problems for us, so you’ll have to be a little forgiving when dealing with our rules. If you have a question about what percentage of a site can contain these kinds of mods, there’s a good chance you’re going to have a problem with it.
Since our website includes references to such mods as Morrowind's Better Bodies, it seems that this rule does apply to us, and we need have some type of disclaimer page before entering the site from the Official Forums, which I imagine we get quite a bit of traffic from with their help sections. I've talked to at least one of the mods (Summer) over there who said, "I think it may need a disclaimer page. We are still waiting to see if it can be arranged for there to be a host page from here. I will bring up Wiki Ratwar as it is linked constantly in the spoilers section and it does have links there to Psychodogs and BB's. I will get clarification on that as we may need to use a disclaimer page when linking there."
Obviously, both parties want to make sure that the UESP is accessible to the official forums, so does anyone have any thoughts on this?--Ratwar 21:59, 23 February 2007 (EST)
- This isn't a personal criticism, Ratwar, but when it comes to legal BS, the correct thing to not take the initiative. If you don't ask, they don't have to stay "No" or "You have to change it." By asking, it means that they have to go to their lawyers and say "What about UESP?" At which point the lawyers have to say "No." So, if you don't ask they don't have to say. Going forward I would suggest that we do nothing until they lodge as specific complaint.
- Second note. If you'll follow the (very long and tedious discussion), there's the legal rule and there's what they say they will enforce, which are totally different things. If you follow the logic of the rule that they state at the beginning "Can't link to websites.. etc.", then clearly linking to most major ES websites would be forbidden. (In fact, even more ridiculously, you wouldn't be able to link to the ESF forum or to the main Oblivion website because it has been rated "Mature".)
- What they say they will enforce is much milder -- and also massively undefined. My read on this is that Bethesda doesn't want to clarify it -- because the more they clarify it, the more they have to say "No", and the more they antagonize modders, and cause major modding sites to become unlinked to. And Bethesda isn't stupid, the truth is that all of those websites (including UESP) help keep their games on shelves selling. (And Morrowind, a 4-5 year old game on the PC is still selling on store shelves -- that's amazing in the PC world -- and is largely due to the presence of mods.) So, again, they don't want to place restrictions on us -- if we don't ask, we won't force them to.
- Third note. The most annoying thing that struck me when reading through the discussion last night is that we're probably already covered by their rules! (Grrr. So much for a principled stand!) The Better Bodies page:
- Already states says that Better Bodies portrays realistic nude human (and elf and orc) bodies. For those who would prefer it, a permanent underwear version is available for all races. I.e., there's already a disclaimer.
- Contains no direct links to nude screenshots, or even screenshots of risque armor.
- In fact, one of the posting guideliness for the page is: If the armor is adult rated (e.g., some of Cenobite's armor), then out of common courtesy to those who might be offended: 1) Don't add a link to an r-rated screenshot. 2) Do add a warning in the description."
- So for now, I would say:
- Quit taking the initiative. Let Bethesda take the initiative and lodge a complaint with us if they like. They have a very long term relationship with Dave and will certainly do this if they feel the need.
- If they make a more specific request, point out that the page already meets the standards that they've set out.
- If that's not enough, then we should see what they request and then debate that request here.
- Final note: I know that the many/most contributors here have a pretty obsessive mindset -- and the natural inclination of that mindset is to seek clarification when faced with ambiguity. But in the legal world, shadows, greyness and vagueness are often desirable (kind of like playing a thief). If you force them to shine more light into that area, you'll most likely force them to say things that both they and we (as the modding/mod playing community) don't want them to say. --Wrye 23:14, 23 February 2007 (EST)
- I have to agree with Wrye here, best to not worry about legal stuff unless your a trained lawyer, if Beth's lawyers have an issue we will be told about it, otherwise any changes made may well do more harm than good. Jadrax 12:50, 24 February 2007 (EST)
- Just as an appendum...Bethesda is well aware of the UESP and I get the occasional notice to take down certain copyrighted materials (like map/manual scans). If there was something on this site that they felt wasn't appropriate I'd be sure to hear about it. -- Daveh 15:47, 2 March 2007 (EST)
UESP Server Status
I've noticed prolonged hang time on some pages today. E.g., while starting a new talk page just a few minutes ago. Earlier today I was completely unable to bring up Special:System Messages, even though other pages would load just fine at the same time. Is the server under additional load?
Or is it perhaps an ad thing? Perhaps there's prolonged delays the first time google tries to figure out what ads to apply to a particular page? I noticed that the ads for the new page that I created were indeed suited to the text of the page that I was creating -- so google must have been doing an immediate processing of the page. --Wrye 00:59, 26 February 2007 (EST)
- I haven't even been checking the site's server status over the last few days... a few other things keeping me busy ;) But a quick check right now suggests that UESP is not at all overloaded at the moment. It is possible that the ads are creating an additional delay as you suggest. The ads are obviously trying to be smart (although I've noticed a few pages where they were completely off base). --Nephele 01:11, 26 February 2007 (EST)
- I have been noticing some delays during the last month or so, too. Especially with the Special:Recentchanges page, when looking at a large number of changes (500 or so). Sometimes it even downloads with the wrong style sheet (the default monobook) or the old logo. Other times, when I click on a diff listed there I get an Error 503 page. I don't know what all this means, but you may have some ideas (I hope). --DrPhoton 03:56, 26 February 2007 (EST)
- Seems to me that it's refreshing slower if it's in a tabbed browser? (I have 2 copies of firefox open, one with 13 tabs open and one with one tab open, the one with 1 is much faster to refresh the same page.) Jadrax 15:08, 26 February 2007 (EST)
- I encountered a few slow downs last week that seemed to be related to the overall site (pauses of 30 seconds or so when no connection would work). I couldn't find an obvious cause to this (no excessive/hanging connections, no DoS, no hanging/crashed processes, etc...). On a guess I disabled the throttle extension I added to the web server some time ago (it wasn't doing anything and the original problem turned to not be related to bandwidth anyways).
- While I haven't encountered the same slowdowns since let me know if anyone else is still getting them, how often, when, etc.... and I'll continue to look into it. Things like the ads and other settings can be easily changed/disabled and then let run for a few days to see if it helps at all. Intermittent problems like this are always a pain to track down as its hard for me to catch 'in the act'. -- Daveh 18:50, 28 February 2007 (EST)
I only looked at Witch Covens first because it seemed interesting. That sad fact is, all Daggerfall pages need serious work. I'd like to suggest forming a project like the Morrowind Design group to format and wikify the Daggerfall pages. I can't do it alone; I don't know the game... Somercy 12:36, 28 February 2007 (EST)
- I would really like to help, but (and there's always a but) I'm up to my eyes in Morrowind stuff, don't own Daggerfall, and want to begin helping the Tamriel Section eventually. The problem with Daggerfall is that it is quite old, so very few people have the game and are active on the wiki. Plus, unlike Arena, it hasn't been released into the public domain. --Ratwar 12:49, 28 February 2007 (EST)
- Admittedly, but if we're gonna stock the pages on the wiki, we ought to keep them clean. I don't own it, myself, but I'd like to try to slog through the muck...Somercy 12:54, 28 February 2007 (EST)
A problem with logging in.
Whenever i log in it will show i have, but when i go back to the page i was on i get logged back out. is it because the account's new? 126.96.36.199 22:35, 2 March 2007 (EST)
- Do you have cookies enabled? That might be a result of not having cookies enabled. Also, make sure your not looking at old cache by hard refreshing the page that tells you that your logged out. (CTRL+F5 in most browsers) --Aristeo | Talk 23:06, 2 March 2007 (EST)
Cookies seem to be enabled, and Hard refreshing didn't work. 188.8.131.52 23:24, 2 March 2007 (EST)
I just tried Firefox and it didn't work, also I'm logged in when i exit the web browser and reopen it, but it still logs me out184.108.40.206 23:42, 2 March 2007 (EST)
- Are you saying that you log in, then use backspace to go back to the page you were previously viewing? What happens if you only go forwards while browsing and never go backwards in the page's history? Do you stay logged in then? --Nephele 00:31, 3 March 2007 (EST)
When i go back to the page where i'm logged in it's the same, the problem is I can't go to a new page without logging out. It shows that i'm not logged in in the corner. 220.127.116.11 00:46, 3 March 2007 (EST)
I log in, and then I click on somthing like Main page or Recent Changes and i'm not logged in anymore.18.104.22.168 00:55, 3 March 2007 (EST)
- Thanks for clarifying that :) It really sounds to me like an issue with cookies. In Firefox, for example, under Tools -> Options -> Cookies, my settings are checked for "Allow sites to set cookies", unchecked for "for the originating site only", unchecked for "unless I have removed cookies set by the site" and keep cookies is set to "until they expire". In IE6, under Tools -> Internet Options -> Privacy I have it set to "medium" and (under advanced) the box "override automatic cookie handling" is unchecked. You might want to check whether somehow UESP has been added to an override list (in Firefox, under "Exceptions", in IE under "Sites") that is always blocked, or even try adding it to the list of explicitly always-allowed sites, at least for long enough to see whether that makes a difference. Hopefully some of those settings will help. --Nephele 01:30, 3 March 2007 (EST)
It's still not working, everything's set to allow cookies and it still dosen't work. 22.214.171.124 01:53, 3 March 2007 (EST)
Everything points to a cookie problem but the options seem okay. 126.96.36.199 01:57, 3 March 2007 (EST)
- Are you by any chance operating on a computer with user-restrictions, such as a school computer? These often have strict security measures in place that can interfere with the standard cookie operation. Not much you can do in that case, other than try and convince the school's I.T. people to stop being overly paranoid jerks. (Good luck with that.) What I don't get is that you were able to log in before, and you can't now. Very strange. --TheRealLurlock Talk 01:58, 3 March 2007 (EST)
I'm on my own computer but it use to be a display model at a electronics store. 188.8.131.52 02:06, 3 March 2007 (EST)
I just tried going directly to the url for editing of this page and i was logged in on the editing page but it signed my name as my IP address. I'm automaticly logged in when i go to any url on this site the first time after opening the web browser but when i go anywhere else it shows that i'm logged out 184.108.40.206 02:14, 3 March 2007 (EST)
Maybe I'm missing a cookie? 220.127.116.11 17:45, 3 March 2007 (EST)
I just noticed that if I go to the main page from anywhere else on the site i'm logged back in, but it still logs me out if i go somewhere else on the site. Edit: Only on firefox. 18.104.22.168 17:50, 3 March 2007 (EST)
Odd, I started a wikipedia account to see if i would have the same problem and I did, but now it's fine, i still have the problem over here. edit: nevermind, it started again. 22.214.171.124 23:46, 3 March 2007 (EST)
- You could try just doing a complete browser cache reset. Delete all history and cookies and start again. It may be the cookie file exists but is corrupted somehow. Also wondering - though it may not be relevant - are you on dial-up? Just noticing that your IP has changed 3 times just in this discussion. (Though only the last number, which implies you have a dynamic IP of some sort, which is usually dial-up.) I don't know if that could affect your ability to log in, but there's a possibility it could be related? --TheRealLurlock Talk 00:09, 4 March 2007 (EST)
I just tried in both firefox and IE7, and i have Hughesnet. 126.96.36.199 00:34, 4 March 2007 (EST)
Hi guys I've been surfing this site and am very impressed by the vast amounts of informations. I'm an editor on a new Wiki called StrategyWiki that is trying to replace GameFAQs as the best source of FAQs and walkthroughs. I've been working on the Oblivion Guide, but there's only so much I can do on my own. As I'm sure you guys know Oblivion (and the other Elder Scrolls games) are far too large for a lone writer to cover everything. So I'm appealing to you guys as both Wiki and Elder Scrolls experts to help me out with the Oblivion guide . Thanks a lot guys! — Unsigned comment by Amoveo (talk • contribs) on 26 March 2007
General resolving thingy
Previously I brought a question related to a page here for the reason that questions presented in the Talk page of various pages usually do not get any kind of a reaction from anybody. Is there really a need for a page such as Oblivion:Imperial_Sewers_N._Exit/Directions? What's its purpose? That's what I want to know now. Then, I would like to propose that a specific talk page be designated for this kind of enquiries that concern a single page or a group of pages, but these questions would be resolved in a centralized manner instead of taking place on a variety of talk pages most editors seem to ignore. --FMan | Talk (contribs) 22:46, 7 March 2007 (EST)
DrPhoton's misuse of his privileges
I am extremely dissatisfied with the recent misconduct of the user DrPhoton. I challenged his edit on Morrowind:Quests and called for a consensus decision. DrPhoton responded in a completely inapproriate way: he reverted my edit. Doing so, he set me on the same line with vandals.
First of all, I cannot begin to emphasize enough, how inappropriate reverting my edit was in a case of an editorial dispute. First, because it is not the proper method of developing pages and second, because the case simply did not warrant a revert. My edit was an editorial decision, not vandalism that should have been reverted.
This can only be described as a gross misuse of administrative privileges of DrPhoton, to use his ability to revert, as a tool to force his view. I did learn something myself - I should check the page history before making an edit that contradicts a previous one and I will try to keep this in mind for the future.
However, the fact that I made an edit that in practice restored the page as it was before, can not be interpreted to allow such measures as taken by DrPhoton. Reverting edits that are not vandalism to restore your edit after another editor has disagreed with you is nothing but asking for an edit war.
The only reason which causes it to be avoided is that I'm not that childish. I cannot understand why DrPhoton refused to wait for the issue to be resolved before taking further action. Moreover, the action that he took was completely out of order and without any kind of basis as DrPhoton was unable to back his story.
He refered me to a generic conversation and went on to say "I consequently removed the links of the cities not having any miscellaneous quests left that start there", which was his personal decision only and in no form previously discussed by the community. This also did not give a response to my reasons of disputing the edit.
My arguments are: 1. Balmora is one of the most prominent cities in the game and for that reason alone its lacking is weird. 2. I don't think I'm so different from normal people that they aren't going to have the same reaction arriving to that page when I did: "where on Earth is Balmora". 3. There is absolutety no reason given for the fact that it's simply missing.
I don't want this to turn into another Aristeo vs. Wrye, from which I stayed well clear of - it can't since the opposite party is an Administrator, and I'm just an editor. This setup makes it even more inappropriate for DrPhoton to misuse his administravite privileges against me in what should have been a purely editorial dispute. Furthermore, the matter should have been discussed before ANY action, as I proposed.
DrPhoton isn't listed as an Administrator, but yet shomehow he has the power to revert edits. A power he blatantly misused to his advantage in an editorial dispute. His behavior was so unprofessional and unsportsmanlike, any special privileges DrPhoton has, but have for some reason been hidden from the community, must be removed, because he cannot be trusted with them.
I would like to ask the opinions of other editors and administrators on this matter. The initial dispute now pales in comparison as the improper way in which DrPhoton handled the case now has tenfold meaning. The whole issue could have been solved easily if it wasn't for the offensive reverting done by him.
There needs to be made a definitive decision whether an administrative tool is allowed to be used by those trusted to have access, to push their personal editorial views. This is the first known case where my edits have been outright reverted and I am taking it as a personal insult. I will be expecting an apology. --FMan | Talk (contribs) 08:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
- ok, first i think you should take a deep breath and calm down. Secondly It makes no sense to take away DrPhotons secret Admin powers to revert, as every editor has them, its not a big deal or secret society of reverters type thing. Third, you don't actually provide any links to anything in your text, so I am having a lot of difficulty following what the problem is. Finally please do not take insult at this, in no way are you being labeled a vandal. Jadrax 08:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
- This issue is sort of more hyped that it should be. Balmora, Dagon Fel, and Gnaar Mok do not have any quests starting in the city itself, they all have related quests only or quests that belong to another faction (i.e.: mage's guild). The Cities and Towns section of the page is for miscellaneous quests starting in those cities, quests that are related to those cities go on the Morrowind:Miscellaneous Quests page. Also, any editor can revert an edit (all you do is go to history and edit a non-current entry), and reverting is not a vandal-only action. Reverting is just a multi-action tool that is easier than re-editing a page to remove all its unnecessary changes. The changes were not needed (as explained above), and they were dealt with in one quick edit (the revert) that fixed all of it. I don't know if you had already talked with DrPhoton about the edit other than just posting on his talk page that his edits were "disgusting," so you may have wanted to just ask him why he made that edit. --WerdnanoslenTalk 10:44, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
- It's going to take me a bit more time to fully understand what this is about. But first I want to clearly state that DrPhoton has no administrative privileges. He did not use any administrative tools or other special powers here, because he doesn't have any. The only "special" privileges DrPhoton has are those of a patroller, but being a patroller does not give an editor any special editing powers; all that being a patroller provides is the power to see red exclamation points next to edits and remove those exclamation points. So most of FMan's complaints seem to be based on a significant misunderstanding and can't be addressed. For example, a "definitive decision whether an administrative tool is allowed to be used" can't be done because there was no use of an administrative tool in this case. --Nephele 12:36, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
- Oh boy, this seems to be a huge misunderstanding. I don't see any misuse of editor powers by DrPhoton. All I see is a simple editor revert, with an explanation attached to it. I don't really think a clear consensus has been established over whether or not there should be links to the Balmora page, but once again, DrPhoton has done nothing wrong. There was no 'edit war'. I hope we can lay this all to rest --Ratwar 14:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
- Looking over what happened, I don't see that DrPhoton did anything here that is different from what FMan himself did. According to UESPWiki:Consensus, neither FMan's edit nor DrPhoton's edit probably should have been done (although this is the one paragraph of that page that still needs more work, see UESPWiki_Talk:Consensus#Wrye 1, so what is truly appropriate is somewhat murky). Both in essence just reverted the page to a previous version; probably neither one should have modified the page if they felt that they issue needed to be discussed in order to be resolved.
- The most important principle however is Assume Good Faith. Although perhaps reverting the edit was not the best judgement call, I see no reason to think that DrPhoton made his edit in bad faith or that he somehow meant to sabotage the consensus process. I definitely don't see that anything in DrPhoton's actions suggests that he considered FMan's edit to be "vandalism". He provided an edit summary with a good explanation of why he made the change ("reverted last edit by FMan: Balmora, Dagon Fel and Gnaar Mok don't have any miscellaenous quest starting there"), and contributed to the discussion started by FMan on the talk page with a more detailed explanation. And just to re-emphasize my previous point: the revert he made was done using standard editor privileges; even an anonymous IP editor could have made the exact same edit. There is no foundation to the allegation that he somehow misused secret administrative powers. If these reverts had continued this would have become an edit war, but as it stood, it was just one round of reverts, and there had not been any clear call made to stop making edits until the issue was resolved.
- I also see no reason to believe that this issue would not have been resolved if FMan had continued to contribute to the talk page discussion instead of disrupting the entire process with these allegations. DrPhoton appeared willing to discuss the edits on the talk page. If FMan felt that he wanted more general input on the question in order to get a community consensus, he should have simply asked for more people's opinions. In the early part of a discussion it is far more productive for everyone to simply contribute to the discussion with their opinions (if necessary overlooking any minor errors in judgement), than to jump to conclusions and start making accusations about other people's motives. Try to remember that everyone shares the same main objective: trying to improve UESPWiki. --Nephele 14:27, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
- Ditto. --Wrye 15:26, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
- It appears that, upon closer inspection, this has turned out to be a problem of perception, rather than behaviour. FMan had apparently gained the impression that reversion of an edit carries a much greater implied rebuke than is commonly understood, and felt that his good-faith contribution had been likened to vandalism by DrPhoton. Furthermore, he was apparently unaware that reversion is merely a term for a specific editing trick that any editor can employ, not a special administration tool, and consequently assumed that DrPhoton A) possessed administrator privileges, and B) had exploited his higher status unfairly to enforce his opinion in a way not open FMan himself. Given these impressions - erroneous, though understandable - I don't think it was wrong of him in his perceived situation to cry foul publicly.
- Now that the misconceptions have been cleared up, and FMan can be assured of a "level playing field" between himself and DrPhoton, I hope he is willing to discuss the matter further on the relevant talk page, without the need for mediation -- JustTheBast 15:52, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
- I agree with Nephele and JustTheBlast. It's understandable that you are upset, DrPhoton may have acted a little quickly, but he did give a explanation. I think you both should apologize to eachother and put this behind you. --188.8.131.52 17:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
FMan, I am sorry you felt you were treated like a vandal, that was certainly not my intention. Please note that reverting is not something solely reserved for vandalism. Also note that the same could have been said about your previous edit. Furthermore, I didn't use any special privileges because I have none apart from those of a patroller, as certified by Nephele above, and I didn't use any special tool, I just edited my previous version of the page, as Werdnanoslen explained. I could indeed have used the Patrol Tool to revert the edit, but in this case I didn't.
Having said this, I think we would have saved all this hassle if you had continued the discussion started in Morrowind Talk:Quests or if you had come to my talk page with your concerns, rather than accusing me openly of things I haven't done. In any case, I am willing to put this behind and continue our discussion on Morrowind Talk:Quests, inviting anyone else to give their inputs to reach a consensus on the matter before any more edits are made. --DrPhoton 04:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
- I no longer wish to contribute to UESP. Good bye! --FMan | Talk (contribs) 13:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
New Warning Messages
I've created a new page of standard warning messages and notices. Hopefully this page will make it easier to post official-looking warning messages on user talk pages. Also, it provides several notices to use as a starting point when pointing out some common mistakes to new editors. Feel free to give the system a try the next time you notice a problem (I've added a convenient link to the page on the top of the recent changes page). Feedback on how to make the system as useful as possible is welcome (here or on the warnings talk page). --Nephele 01:54, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
- Looks good! :) I placed all of my warning pages under speedy deletion (cat) since you decided to make your own. If you want to use them, feel free to take what you want before deleting them. (I release those pages I marked for speedy deletion into the public domain, so don't worry about having to keep them around for copyright reasons if you decide to use their content.) --Aristeo | Talk 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Morrowind ingredient lists
(copied from User talk:TheRealLurlock)
I've found two on external sites - here and here - since the data is all compiled from stuff copyrighted by Bethesda (same as the ingredients and alchemy effect lists), could either of these (they're the same) be copied here directly? Alphax 09:38, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
- Two sides to this: legal and common courtesy. The legal side is that yes, collections of information can be copyrighted. While the individual bits of info may not be copyrighted (or might be under a separate copyright), the assembly of info is covered by a "collection" copyright. E.g., phone books and maps are covered by collection copyrights even though they're just assemblies of known facts. So, yes it would be a copyright violation to copy the collection. Note that independent creation without copying would be okay -- but you would actually have to do it, not just point out that you could do it. Typically, independent creation results in differences in substantial differences in text, so lack of such substantial differences would be evidence of copying.
- The second side is common courtesy. The guy on that other site worked hard to get the info and the present it in attractive way. It's really nicely done. Common courtesy says don't steal his effort.
- You can of course ask the guy if the info can be copied here (under CC license, of course), but I wouldn't be surprised if he says no. (The wiki/CC license is pretty open, and not all authors want to give their work away like that.) If you don't want to go to the effort of duplicating the guys work, you may want to just link to his site. We do that with CS Wiki and did that with Oblivion mod wiki (while it was still around). --Wrye 15:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
My webname is Geniepert and I joined today the UESP pages for a little contibuting. If anyone want to know me please go to my member page (Its also Geniepert) I have no experience yet with editing Wikipedia pages so please forgive me if this inquiry is badly placed. (I'm Dutch so appologies for any bad grammar) Thank you. Kind Regards Geniepert. Date and time : 2:36, april the first.
|Prev: Archive 6||Up: Community Portal||Next: Archive 8|